Steven Lowy. By the end of Monday’s AGM the FFA will not be chaperoned by a member of the Lowy family for the first time in its existence.
Photograph: Peter Parks/AFP/Getty Images

Football Federation Australia hosts its 15th Annual General Meeting next Monday and it promises to be one of the most notable in the organisation’s history. It will be the first formal gathering of Australian football’s leaders since the culmination of the bitter congress expansion dispute, and the decisions taken will have far-reaching implications.

The most significant order of business is the replenishment of the FFA board. The board is comprised of nine directors, six elected and three appointed. Four of these elected positions are up for grabs at the AGM, including the role of chair. By the end of Monday’s meeting FFA will not be chaperoned by a member of the Lowy family for the first time in its existence.

The directors elected will be involved in negotiating the terms of the A-League’s independence, one of the most significant items of business in the history of Australian football. They will also have to adjudicate on the timeline for A-League expansion, steer the bid to host the 2023 Women’s World Cup, support the senior men’s and women’s national teams through international tournaments, and much more besides during a hectic few months. There is a strong possibility the new board will refresh FFA’s senior management team.

The new congress arrangements mean responsibility for appointing the new board falls to three stakeholder groups: the nine member federations who wield 55% of voting power between them, the nine A-League clubs who collectively possess 28% of votes, and the players’ union, PFA, who have a 7% say. Those three groups also contribute an equal share to the newly formed Women’s Council which has been handed a voting allocation of 10%.

The football community wants and deserves greater democracy

Bonita Mersiades

A director requires 60% of the vote - a prescribed majority - to be elected. The new congress is therefore forced by design into some degree of collaboration to escort a preferred candidate over the line. In theory, this a positive development for Australian football. “Working in a federal model, like FFA, the only way to govern effectively is to engage collaborative governance,” Professor David Shilbury, chair in sport management at Deakin University says. “It requires the national body to engage the boards of its member associations and key stakeholders to engage them in the whole strategy formulation process and understanding of what’s going on in their sport.”

The AGM is the first practical application of this model of mutual self-interest incentivising congress members to work collaboratively. Negotiations under way behind the scenes indicate there is cause for optimism. For example, the 11 candidates on the ballot can broadly be categorised as consensus selections, meaning regardless of the four names announced at the AGM a palatable outcome should be achieved for most stakeholders.

But there remains room for improvement, most obviously the opacity of the election process. While positive steps may be being taken towards an optimal outcome, for as long as communication to the broader public is piecemeal a degree of scepticism is inevitable. To put it another way, regardless of the answer, the football community would benefit from seeing some of the workings out.

The timing of this AGM makes this both essential and perilous. It is perilous because the new congress makes for some uneasy bedfellows and there are concerns a public-facing campaign could jeopardise embryonic working relationships. It is essential because the gap between the game’s leaders and grassroots is yawning. As Bonita Mersiades has written: “The football community bought into the so-called reform process because it wanted change. That change wasn’t about shifting deckchairs. The football community wants and deserves greater democracy, transparency and accountability.”

Of the three stakeholder groups represented on congress, PFA are currently alone in pursuing an open process. When they nominated their two candidates for the board they did so with detailed supporting arguments. Since then they have circulated a framework to participants outlining their rigorous decision-making process.

New generation of golden girls not dampened by Matildas' shock loss

Read more

Efforts to broaden engagement in the election process have been aided by an intervention from the Association of Australian Football Clubs, the organisation representing sides competing in the NPL. The AAFC have organised a public forum in Melbourne featuring six of the board candidates. Each nominee will have up to three minutes to state their case and then face questions from the audience. “With such a large field, many of whom are unknown to us, we believe it is important to meet the candidates and hear from them first hand on their vision for the game,” AAFC chairman Rabieh Krayem said.

What is certain to emerge at this forum is a clamour for candidates to assert their football credentials. Unfairly or not there is a perception among large sections of the football community that the game has for too long been led by individuals without a requisite passion or understanding of the game. The FFA board requires more than simply football acumen however. Skills in legal, political, commercial and other fields are also necessary. Finding an appropriate blend is a delicate balancing act.

As Shilbury explains: “Commercialisation is always the driver towards professionalisation and professionalisation creates a tension between the sport being a sport and play and the sport being a business. It’s neither one nor the other in its entirety, and that’s what makes sport business so unique.”